This explains political relativity very well, and in a very funny way.
I may find this more amusing than most because I continue to be called a Socialist by Conservatives, and a Conservative by Liberals. When typically in tests I score as a "Moderate Republican" per this comic.
92 comments:
Just a reminder. I'm more moderate than you are, according to the test.
That is kind of funny...
Discussion
Test
Quiz 2
Jerry,
On this scale I have a hard time deciding if you are a 7 or 8. And of course you slip into the Conspiracy Monger area sometimes...
I am likely a 6 or 5...
1. Left
2. Progressive
3. Liberal
4. Moderate Democrat
5. Centrist
6. Moderate Republican
7. Conservative
8. Christian Right
9. Reactionary, Conspiracy Monger
10. Alt Right, Fascist, Nuts
So if Biden is a 3 or 4, and Sanders / Warren are a 1 or 2, where do you think you all fit in?
I would rate myself a 3.
So are you supporting Biden?
The problem is the notion that people fit on a monotonic scale of any kind, and to presume you can pigeonhole people accordingly is an obstacle to communication at best.
Now I will admit that I find that some people seem to live in a different reality, political and otherwise, than do I. That doesn't mean my reality isn't real, and you cannot imagine how annoying/insulting it is when others say such.
My favorite candidate is Amy or maybe Michael Bennet (who is an even bigger long shot)
If I had to vote today I would pick Biden out of the current front runners. I am really not excited to vote for him as I think he is too old.
Are you going to vote in the Democratic primary? Who would you vote for? Would you vote for any of them over Trump?
Jerry,
I keep waiting for the day that your comments vary from a stereotypical 7, 8 or 9 person.
Laurie,
No
Maybe Amy. I really have not looked at them.
John, your problem is that your standard response to any opinion, fact or personal experience that varies from your own per-conceived notion of "truth" is to simply deny it because "you are a 7, 8, or 9 person." Depending on the issue, I'm somewhere between a 2 and a 10, but you cannot see it. Why use stereotypes at all, when you are asking what others think? Relying on stereotypes is racist, sexist and bigoted.
Please share an issue where you are a 2?
And I don’t think I have disagreed with anyone for who they are...
I usually disagree with their facts or logic.
But you predetermine what "facts and logic" you will accept based on who you think people are.
Just above you ask me to suggest an issue on which YOU would consider me a "2." You simply refuse to believe me when I tell you that /I/ believe there is one or more.
No I just look at your data and argument.
I ask because in 10+ years I have never read a comment from you that seems remotely 2ish.
Now I do question your sources bias often since often you pick non-experts...
Rigggghht. And who gets to decide what YOU find "2-ish"? Who gets to decide the bias of a source, or who is an "expert" on any given subject? WHY do they have to be an expert; do you know nothing of your own education, understanding and experience? Is it possible for you to learn something from somebody else and if not, why do you keep asking questions?
I guess the source gets to decide his own bias. Since most sources of information are biased, if we dismissed biased sources of information, we would cut ourselves off from information altogether. We would all be Lindsay Grahams, so tormented by information that he refuses to take any more in, leaving himself to be governed by his own, now undisturbed, bias.
--Hiram
Jerry,
If you don’t want to share your liberal positions, that is your prerogative. As it is ours to perceive your position from what you do choose to share.
Sorry but your political science and religious climate change sources have no credibility regarding the science.
Hiram,
Yes limdsay’s I don’t want to hear the truth position is odd.
There are a lot of strategies out there designed to insulate people from information. There seems to be a widespread, if often not clearly stated, view that if you damaging someone's credibility proves that what they say is untrue. While I am certainly no fan of logic, the notion that what we believe about something changes that something seems bizarre and almost atavistic. Whether or not I believe the sun will rise in the east in the morning has virtually no impact on whether it will.
--Hiram
If you don’t want to share your liberal positions, that is your prerogative. As it is ours to perceive your position from what you do choose to share.
There are arguments, I see, which I think of as generic, canned arguments often suitable for any occasion. They are popular because they are easy to make, and almost always with a grain of truth to them, and they don't require much effort to make. One of them is accusing someone of making a "straw man" argument. What often happens is that people will make arguments full of innuendo and unstated assumptions. When called on that, the response is "I didn't say that, you are making a straw man argument." The discussion wanders off into irrelevance from there.
--Hiram
"religious climate change sources"??? You mean NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and EPA?
As for my "positions," you are very quick to tell me what they are, or must be, because of my stated positions on other issues. And if I DO tell you what they are (communication is difficult enough in these short notes) you simply perceive them through your own strong bias. Just as you've done above, here.
No... The "intelligent design guy..." who think that humans can ot screw up God's creation...
No matter what the science shows...
And I will write it again...
"If you don’t want to share your liberal positions, that is your prerogative. As it is ours to perceive your position from what you do choose to share."
So what is "my strong bias" again??? Usually people accuse me of sitting on the fence...
If I recall correctly there may have been once or twice that Jerry and I agreed on something related to education.
Isn't that curious, that "liberal" Laurie and "right wing extremist" Jerry can agree on something, but "moderate" Jerry and "moderate" John cannot? Is it remotely possible that this rigid pigeonholing of people creates a bias so strong as to actually PREVENT the seeking of solutions, or of even discussion itself?
Jerry,
There are some areas where the Far Right and Far Left are aligned, so it does not surprise me at all.
I mean just think of the resistance to holding Parent(s) accountable for making responsible decisions for the goods of their existing children.
Neither Laurie nor yourself would ever think of stopping irresponsible mamas from bringing more babies into this world.
And since she works at a charter school and Conservatives think they are wonderful, of course their will be times when you are aligned.
Now I would wonder how many Liberals other than Laurie are strong school choice advocates? Is that a normal Liberal position or is she swayed since she works there?
Would she be excited to back your voucher proposals that could take money from Traditional and Charter Public schools?
Jerry,
Please remember that a 6 like me and an 8 like you also have plenty in common.
- We want to hold public employees accountable for working effectively and efficiently.
- We want people receiving public assistance held accountable for improving and working their way of such programs.
-We think the Climate Change impacts may be less severe than many on the Left.
- We are against "socialism", whatever that means.
- We want religious people to be free to practices their beliefs.
- We want only Legal Workers working in the USA.
- Etc
Being an 8 is not a bad thing...
I think it is just important to acknowledge one's bias.
Otherwise it is very hard to fight our natural tendency towards confirmation bias.
So, in short, "no beliefs were harmed in the making of this blog."
And I object to being called an 8.
The good news is that you can ignore my perspective, belief and data as you often do.
Or you can help me to understand where you see yourself as a Liberal?
It makes no difference to me.
I am trying to think of any time where you have advocated for something other than the Far Right GOP / Tea Party position on anything... I really am coming up blank. Sorry. I am trying. :-)
The problem is your insistence on pigeonholing everybody into some rigid ideological position in either a one- or two-dimensional spectrum. People are complicated, and that is the way it is supposed to be. On issue after issue, alliances change and the REASONS why people choose one proposition over another varies widely between individuals. In trite terms, "the devil is in the details." For example, we all want schools properly funded. What does that mean? When the levy referendum comes around, do we vote for it or against it? It's a binary choice, with people of good will on both sides. And that isn't even the proper question! Do we want our kids better educated (yes, obviously), and how much should that cost, would be a more appropriate precursor discussion.
The only "political relativity" I care about is where you stand on the topic at hand, and how that topic relates to the real issue, whatever that may be. Do you need an example, or is that clear?
Jerry,
Your positions and comments are what earn you your "pigeon hole"
1. We all want schools properly funded. What does that mean?
2. Do we want our kids better educated (yes, obviously), and how much should that cost?
Unfortunately your Conservative bias against:
- the existing Public Education system,
- Teacher's Unions,
- Common core
- Federal Dept of Education clout
- Holding Parent(s) accountable
- Thorough Sex Education
- etc
Or bias for:
- School vouchers
- Blaming school's / teachers
- etc
color every analysis, discussion, research effort, negotiation you undertake.
This is normal. However the stronger one's opinion, the stronger the confirmation bias.
Own your position on the spectrum. Don't let it own you.
Now how would a Liberal view the world?
Maybe bias against:
- School vouchers
- Blaming school's / teachers
- Local school funding via referendums
- school vouchers
- etc
and bias for:
- higher funding for troubled communities
- higher funding for special ed
- the existing Public Education system,
- Teacher's Unions,
- Federal Dept of Education clout
- Thorough Sex Education
- etc
"Earn a pigeonhole"??? How absolutely insulting. You continue to insist that any position other than yours is somehow invalid, based not in reason and a real values system but on some unknown bias resulting from YOUR "pigeonholing system."
I have been in too many places where, once labels were either unknown or forsaken, real discussion and consensus solutions could develop. This "place" is not one of them.
1. Actually I am not saying who is correct or incorrect.
2. I am simply acknowledging that people view things from different perspectives. And based on 10+ years of blogging, they do not change much over time.
3. And these perspectives are reinforced via confirmation bias.
4. I am saying that based on our many comment exchanges, I believe your seat in the theater is an 8. (RM or RR)
What of the above do you actually disagree with?
I am happy to reconsider my perspective regarding where you are sitting in the theater. All you need to do is at some point take a Liberal position on some topic, any topic...
Please list out the "liberal position" on every topic, and I will choose one. I have general admission in the theater and sit where I want. I do not accept assigned seating if you are the one making the assignments.
Yes, people see things from different perspectives, but let them talk to one another like real, complex human beings and they will generally find points of agreement. Simply dismissing any and all comment as being from the "wrong" side of the theater stops the conversation cold.
No one here dismisses your views because you are seated on the Far Right.
They dismiss some because they disagree with the views you state or because you do not make an adequate argument.
Only you can improve the quality of your statements / sources, logic of them, proof of them, etc.
Ah, I see. Only you get to decide what is logical, reasonable, "proof" or "adequate." You also get to decide the validity of sources. Maybe you could get a job with Adam Schiff's committee.
The challenge has always been to express one's viewpoint in the few words allotted here. When those few words are routinely dismissed as illogical, unreasonable, "unsourced," or biased, any opportunity for communication is lost.
Jerry,
Do you really think that we should be convinced by your saying.
"Trust me, I did the calculations."
Would you believe us if we did so?
I mean I have provided hundreds of sources by topic experts and you almost always deny their conclusions or change the subject.
As for topic length. You always have an open invitation to guest post. Just email me what you want to show / write. give2get@live.com
Yes, I would expect you to believe it, unless you took issue with the assumptions used which you did not, or better yet did the math using "better" assumptions which you did not. You make no quibble whatsoever about the hundreds of assumptions that go into the climate models, and simply deny the results of even the simplest math if it contradicts your predetermined beliefs.
As for your "experts," is not their choice a matter of confirmation bias on your part? Why doubt mine and trust yours, and why should I go along with that prejudice?
I think you skipped my question as is often the case...
You write...
"Trust me, I did the calculations."
Would you believe us if we did so?
Unfortunately your sources are often economists, political scientists and/or religious believers...
I would prefer to have scientists for sources regarding scientific issues.
There you go again, judging the validity of sources according to your own severely biased standards. The truth is where you find it and, I hate to say it, but sometimes "scientists" lie as badly as politicians. We're coming up on the tenth anniversary of "climategate" and yet the Big Lie still prevails.
Oh, and /I/ can call myself a Scientist, I have a degree in the subject.
I spent a whole paragraph answering your question. Why do I bother?
Jerry,
I think I have read every piece of information you have ever directed me to.
Unfortunately your "economists, political scientists and/or religious believers" tend to repeat opinions / rhetoric rather than data.
And yes some scientists were caught manipulating data. That was identified and corrected as it should be.
What is /are your degree(s) in?
Fact Check Climategate
Wiki ClimateGate
OK, Fact Check starts out saying " there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible." That is not a proven fact and therefore the rest of their "facts" should be completely dismissed.
And the Wiki article, written on the bias, says "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway." I call BS.
My Bachelor of Science degree is in Engineering Science. My senior thesis was in Nuclear Science. I graduated second in my class, one semester short of minors in Chemistry, Physics, and Math. I have spent a good portion of my career doing complex computer modelling.
Here's your question: "Trust me, I did the calculations."
Would you believe us if we did so?
And here is the answer that you claim to have read:
Yes, I would expect you to believe it, unless you took issue with the assumptions used which you did not, or better yet did the math using "better" assumptions which you did not. You make no quibble whatsoever about the hundreds of assumptions that go into the climate models, and simply deny the results of even the simplest math if it contradicts your predetermined beliefs.
I see. I answered in the third person, not the first. The answer is no different. I would trust you if you published your conclusions, your assumptions, and your mathematical procedure, at least until I could find fault with some portion of it, ideally having enough information to do the calculation myself, if I cared enough.
So you are an engineer with no climate science back ground. Somewhat like me...
And yet you call BS...
This is your normal reaction unfortunately.
So the reason why people discount your views has nothing to do with you being an 8 and everything with your making a poor persuasive argument and providing questionable sources.
Only you can improve these.
And next you will cry BS to NASA, NOAA, etc. :-(
So the reason people dismiss my views has everything to do with being an "8" and nothing to do with the argument being made, regardless of how persuasive it may or may not be to an OBJECTIVE observer.
But I will give you a chance. WHERE is the conclusive scientific evidence that the current global warming is largely caused by manmade CO2?
On the contrary. NASA, NOAA, etc. prove my point, remember?
No... I clearly wrote...
"So the reason why people discount your views has nothing to do with you being an 8 and everything with your making a poor persuasive argument and providing questionable sources."
NASA and NOAA certainly believe differently than you. But you keep believing as you wish.
Ah. I found your problem. YOU BELIEVE that NASA and NOAA disagree with me. Indeed, their public statements, intended to keep the money flowing, would seem to support your belief. BUT... their DATA shows no such thing! You can look at the surface temperature data from their "reference stations," or the satellite temperature record. You can certainly read into that data some far-off "catastrophic warming" if that is your wont, or you can predict the next ice age; it's all hype and speculation for fun and profit.
As I said... "you keep believing as you wish"
I'll keep being a skeptical man made climate change believer like Judith Curry. And let you continue being the Denier.
OK, believe as Curry does, then, that any "manmade climate emergency" will not occur in this century, if at all.
“Emergency” in this case depends on where you live and how much money you have.
I am feeling pretty secure in MN.
"Emergency" implies that something bad will happen to somebody in the very near future or has already happened to somebody. Dr. Curry has repeatedly said that the ACTUAL data projections show NO worrisome warming until well past 2100 (for anybody, it's "global," remember). The REAL emergency is in preventing 3rd world nations from developing with cheap energy, and developing nations spending trillions on "renewable" energy that threatens prosperity and safety while doing nothing to help the environment.
Here's one example. Got a letter from Sen. Smith the other day and she made a statement that "wind is now the cheapest form of energy." What she overlooks is the cost of GETTING that "free energy." In power/pound, power/$, and power/sq. mi., that is wrong. Especially since, every time you put up a wind farm, you have to put up a gas-fired power plant beside it for the 70% of the time the wind isn't blowing. Obviously it is cheaper to just put up the gas-fired plant alone. And on top of that, engineering realities require you to rebuild that wind farm at least once, maybe two or three times, during the lifetime of that gas-fired plant.
If your emergency was a broken leg, would you want them to scramble the gravel truck, or the ambulance?
As usual you are full of opinions... I like Judy because she does not deny that humans are screwing up this world... Unlike you and the Deniers... :-)
And she does not run around saying the sky is falling like the AGW folk...
"Conclusions
Possible scenarios of incremental worsening of weather and climate extremes over the course of the 21st century don’t change the fundamental fact that many regions of the U.S. are not well adapted to the current weather and climate variability or to the extremes that were seen earlier in the 20th century. Conflating the issue of extreme weather events with manmade climate change can actually be counterproductive for understanding the variability of extreme weather events and
reducing our vulnerability.
We have an opportunity to be proactive in preparing for weather disasters. Rather than focusing on recovery from extreme weather events, we can aim to reduce future vulnerability and increase thrivability by evolving our infrastructures, policies and practices. Apart from infrastructure improvements, improvements to federal and state policies can substantially reduce the occurrence and extent of wildfires, and can help mitigate the damage associated with landfalling hurricanes. Further, tactical adaptation practices incorporating tailored weather forecast products can help mitigate the damages associated with extreme weather events.
Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts that reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather events and increase thrivability.
More balanced guidance from Judith.
"Focusing more resources on medium to extended range weather forecasts, along with developing action plans tied to these forecasts, would go a long way towards alleviating problems associated with extreme weather events. And provide a far better investment in human development and economic benefits in the near term than reducing carbon emissions.
A society that learns to deal with present hazards through tactical adaptation will be more adept at dealing with future hazards that may be more frequent and intense."
I am encouraged by your acceptance of Dr. Curry's "balanced" outlook. Please note it is "balanced" along the lines of "let's do things that make sense regardless of what happens to the climate, rather than going nuts about manmade CO2." I'm obviously paraphrasing, but that's it.
"Regardless of what caused this heat wave event, I don’t think that international negotiations and reducing CO2 emissions is going to help address the problem of India’s heat waves, at least in the near term. But tactical adaption, following the model developed for Ahmedabad, can make a huge difference with minimal cost."
As for bipartisan support for common sense, that horse has left the barn, and currently policy is what was left behind.
I agree... Those Deniers fight all improvement solutions...
They even complain about wind turbines.
Well, the real "science deniers" are those who insist the world will end in 12 years, and have been insisting on that for 30 years, but besides that, it is those opposed to these cranky doomsayers who are offering real solutions, like gas replacing coal, high-efficiency coal, coal gasification, nuclear power, waste MHD, etc. and NOT windmills. "complaining about" windmills is the SENSIBLE position. See above.
As I said... "you keep believing as you wish"
I guess I will continue to believe that you live in some alternate reality that Dr. Curry, thousands of scientists, real data and mathematics cannot support, and have no effect on your religious belief.
You keep forgetting that Dr Curry is not a Man Made Climate Change Denier like yourself.
She like myself acknowledges that it is happening, we need to make balanced changes, and we need to start adapting.
Who said I was a denier? I agree with Curry, the world is getting warmer, at about the same pace as it has for the last 170 years, and CO2 is increasing, partly because of fossil fuel burning. The only things I "deny" are: 1) that actual temperatures are following model predictions, 2) measured temperature trends are, or are likely to, create a "climate emergency in this century, 3) that total CO2 is the principal driver of global temperatures, 4)that manmade CO2 is a significant driver of total CO2, and 5) manmade CO2 is the "control knob" of global temperatures.
You seem to assume these things as a matter of blind faith; I can see no other validity. Neither does Curry, though (my one quibble with her) she phrases things ever so gently, talking mostly about "uncertainties." Based on what we KNOW, this rush to "decarbonize" seems very expensive and foolish.
Just to be clear... IF manmade CO2 were the proximate cause of "castastrophic global warming" at some foreseeable future point in time, Windmills and solar panels are the WRONG solution to that problem! They are not part of "adaptation" by any stretch, and they violate my fundamental environmentalist philosophy which is, if it costs LESS, that is better for the environment and justifies itself. No mandates, subsidies, harangues or riots in the street are needed.
Please remember that CO2 is just of the knobs that we humans are turning.
Unfortunately using the less expensive solution is often selfish and a bad idea.
Someone else ends up bearing the burden of the emissions, pollution, etc.
That is why we had to pass clean water and clean air acts.
And why we now face a warming world.
Well that and to many darn humans... :-)
Look at all these folks who are saving themselves some money.
Seems to me you are changing the subject. If the problem is defined as "manmade CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic global warming," and the solution is to reduce fossil fuel emissions, then you have identified a non-problem and you are in favor of mandating an expensive non-solution.
IF you have an energy source which is cheaper, equally reliable and easily distributed compared to what we have today, we will all happily buy it. No mandates, subsidies or riots in the street needed. If that energy source incidentally produces less CO2, and that matters to you, fine.
But coal is not that “less expensive fuel”.
It unfortunately just distributes it’s costs across the world and to future generations.
Thank God for wind turbines and natural gas until something better is developed.
Ah, you are trying to count the "social cost of carbon." Fine, except CO2 is not a pollutant, and the only "cost" is that it makes plants grow better using less water. Other pollutants-- fly ash and sulfur, for example-- have been reduced by 98%, so that isn't a big concern unless you are in China, which lacks the emission controls the US, thanks to cheap energy, has developed and deployed.
As for wind turbines, they aren't even in the same league as coal. They are expensive, require vast amounts of land and CO2-producing energy, massive mining of minerals, kill birds and bats, and create great amounts of hazardous waste. That "something better" has NOT arrived, and we shouldn't be pretending it has.
Oh, and as Minnesotans found out last winter, putting in natural gas plants to back up windmills creates a natural gas shortage when the wind doesn't blow, and people get cold in their homes. Better to just put in the natural gas plant and forget the windmills.
A lack of logistics planning is not the fault of the wind turbines. :-)
Someone screwed up and forgot to keep gas where they needed it.
Maybe it is the cars fault when an operator runs it out of gas. :-)
98% is not 100%... There is still a lot of nasty stuff escaping those stacks. And someone pays.
By the way... NPR Turbine Recycling
It is not the fault of the wind turbines. It is the fault of the fools who put them up in the first place, subsidized by the fools who mandated them, thinking these big bird-beaters would somehow miraculously save the planet. Fools.
And the best kind of recycling for those turbine blades would be to stop building them entirely. It's not like they were cost-effective, let alone efficacious at "stopping global warming."
98% is good enough. Each incremental improvement costs 10x what the previous increment does and at some point there is a negative cost-benefit, which is where we are now.
So many opinions, so few sources or back up data. :-)
Do I really need sources, when so much of this is simple common knowledge? We all know that our utilities charge a premium to buy "green power" for our homes. We all know that Warren Buffet cancelled plans for a big wind farm in Texas, saying it was not a viable investment without the subsidies. We know that Minnesota has mandated renewables by 2030 or whenever. And you yourself provided the source saying recycling the blades is a big problem, but failed to note how OFTEN this must occur. I'm also wondering how the 1500 yards of reinforced concrete beneath each tower gets "recycled."
And we /should/ all know about the blackouts in CA, and the one here, and the ones in Australia, caused by an over-reliance on unreliable wind energy. And we /should/ all know by now that, despite repeated dire predictions, there has =never= been a moose on the road near Phoenix, AZ.
Is it your opinion that facts are malleable, true or not based only on who states them?
Back to the topic... You are an ~8 and a man made climate change denier, therefore "facts" that support your opinions resonate with you and catch your attention. While you discount or do not notice opposing "facts".
Please remember this silliness you spewed just recently...
"They are expensive, require vast amounts of land and CO2-producing energy, massive mining of minerals, kill birds and bats, and create great amounts of hazardous waste."
Your opinions are not believable without sources to back them up.
By the way, each wind turbine only requires about 3 acres. And regarding Buffett support
I see. You simply dismiss any fact you do not agree with and, rather than look it up for yourself so you can make an informed decision, you simply call it my opinion and go on believing the hoax and hype. So try this:
big wind dirty secret
You deny that power companies charge MORE for wind energy? You deny the land use requirements (Harvard says we need 1/3 of the US)? You deny the rare earth mineral extraction problem? (see above) You deny that the EPA issued a blanket exemption to allow wind farms to kill birds, including endangered species? You deny the blade disposal problem that you yourself posted about? Who is the "denier" here?
Oh, and notice Buffet has a strong contract to sell, no doubt at favorable prices, the complete output of his wind farm? In Texas, he would get a subsidy to put them up but not to operate them at a profit. Totally different deal. Interesting, though. Keep trying to explain why we are doing something very expensive that has zero net benefit to the climate. You do know that large wind farms INCREASE surface temperatures?
I have no doubt that rare earth element mining and refining is a dirty business. However blaming that on Wind Turbines is silly. They are used in almost all compact electronics, and it sounds like China is trying to become more environmentally friendly.
Now I am not sure what Harvard was saying, but out in Buffalo ridge there is only about one turbine per square mile. So it only uses about 3 acres of land per 640 acres. As the generators get big they need to be even further apart to get enough wind power.
It looks like folks are working on the bird issue. Since when did you become a bird lover? :-)
I have faith that blade recycling will be fine when the volumes make it profitable. It is just resin and fiber glass.
Sources for your opinions...
Keep trying to explain why we are doing something very expensive that has zero net benefit to the climate.
You do know that large wind farms INCREASE surface temperatures?
And yes I do agree that coal is cheaper for the initial current consumer...
That in no way means that it is cheaper overall...
Please explain "cheaper overall." Seems to me that killing lots of Chinese and birds is at least as environmentally undesirable as a tiny bit of CO2 "plant food."
Now you are worried about birds and the Chinese peasants...
Did you become a liberal environmentalist all of a sudden?
Please note that the USGS reports that clean energy is still just 7% of usage.
Ironically catalyst and fuel related uses is 62%... Apparently petrochemical usage has killed the peasants. :-(
Well that and a government that does not have a strong EPA.
So now I am not allowed to care about anything or anybody? I don't have to be a liberal to appreciate the environment, and I don't have to be an environmentalist, in the usual use of the term, either. And being a Christian I not only don't want people poisoned, but I would like to see them prosper by having access to cheap energy that minimizes REAL pollution. And I do not, nor should you, consider CO2 a pollutant.
Jerry,
I am happy you care about the poor, the animals, etc.
Usually your comments are pro-Capitalism and screw the losers. :-)
Pollutant: "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose."
I think in this case the mix matters... I mean nitrogen is harmless unless it displaces all of the oxygen in the room. Then it is lethal.
And apparently too many green house gases in the upper atmosphere may cause death and/or displacement to millions / billions of humans because it prevents heat from leaving the atmosphere.
With that in mind it is kind of a pollutant when there is too much.
My definition of a pollutant is "resources out of place." Since CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and makes plants grow faster with less water, that is resources in the RIGHT place. Greenhouse owners routinely inject it into their greenhouses as beneficial. Right now, you have over 100 times the level of CO2 in your lungs as is in the atmosphere and you're still alive.
As for "too many greenhouse gasses," that is a statement with near-zero scientific credibility. Especially since it has been repeatedly proven that the upper-atmosphere "hot spot" predicted by the models (using this "theory") has never been found.
Post a Comment